UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular appeal is directed against the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 14.3.1980. The learned Additional District Judge vide his aforementioned judgment and decree has affirmed the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Amritsar on 9.12.1977.

(2.) One Mohinder Singh filed a suit seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 24 kanals comprised in Killa Nos.68.69 and 176 according to the jamabandi for the year 1970 -71 situated in village Kallowal, District Amritsar. He further claimed that after declaring him owner and in possession a decree for permanent in -junction be issued restraining one Smt. Guro widow of Bansa Singh -respondent No.2 from dispossessing him or interfering in his possession. The learned Sub Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that plaintiff Mohinder Singh was not the owner of the land in dispute but he was in possession on the basis that the land was mortgaged to his predecessor -in -interest Sadhu Singh by one Mangta vide mortgage deed dated 13.8.1924. The land which was mortgaged to Sadhu Singh comprised in the old Khasra No.623 as per jamabandi for the year 1922 -23. It is clarified that the land comprising in Killa Nos.68, 69 and 176 according to jamabandi for the year 1970 -71 situated in village Kallowal, District Amritsar was allotted to Sadhu Singh in lieu of the mortgaged land. Mohinder Singh plaintiff and his sister claimed succession in equal shares being the son and daughter of real brother of Sadhu Singh. It was alleged that the mortgage was never redeemed. The learned trial court found that the plaintiff -respondent has failed to prove that he had become owner of the property. However, on the basis of entries in khasra girdawaries produced by the plaintiff -respondent, it was held that his name had always figured therein and earlier to his name, the name of Sadhu Singh used to appear in the column of Agriculture in the kasra girdawaries. It was further held by the trial court that name of Smt. Guro defendant -respondent No.2 had not appeared at any stage in khasra girdawaries. It is pertinent to mention that Union of India did not contest the suit before the trial Court. The trial Court passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 restraining defendant -respondent No.2 Smt. Guro from interfering in possession of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 over the suit land and restrained her from dispossessing plaintiff -respondent No. 1 from this land. The prayer of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 for a decree of declaration that he was owner of the suit land was declined. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both plaintiff -respondent No. 1 and defendant -respondent No.2 filed appeals before the learned District Judge, Amritsar. Deciding both the appeals by a common judgment, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and also repelled the plea of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 claiming that he had become owner of the said land. While rejecting the plea of plaintiff -respondent No. 1, the learned Additional District Judge held as under: -

(3.) So, far as the appeal filed by the defendant -respondent No.2 is concerned, the learned Additional District Judge concluded that she was never delivered possession as the warrants of allotment issued in her favour were not received back after execution. In this regard, the view taken by learned Additional District Judge is as under: -